What a tiny, nice game:) Thanks Fencer!

Mirjam: I hope more people will find it interesting :-)

Yeah,this is very interesting game,but I made one mistake and game is in **** :),This game need tactic and I think luck too..

luck?!?

I haven't solved it yet;)

Just because this game may be solved doesn't mean people won't like it. Five-in-line is one of the most popular game here and it is solved (I am told).

Hmm,

White won 325 (49 %)
Black won 287 (43 %)
Draws 56 (8 %)

Is there an advantage in going first?

If it is solved this presents a problem :) If it is solved, is the program available for the public? This would be tragic :(

Thad: Since I was asked to play in the Los Alamos team tournament for The Untouchables, I have been studying this game for a while. I think that white has a big advantage going first because I feel they can control the center much easier than in 8x8 chess and I think center control is more important in this game rather than 8x8. And moving first = opportunity to control center first. Those statistics don't really say white has a blatant advantage but after a month of studying openings in Los Alamos, I would rather be white in every game if it was possible!

Fencer, This game looks like it might be a good addition to the 6x6 games.

Mini Burmese Chess

I would like to express my sincere admiration for Bigboulix who has regained first rank in Los Alamos Chess by beating sasufix, a former solid 1900 player, in seven consecutive games within less than 24 hours! All seven games are great steps ahead in the elaboration of Los Alamos opening theory as well as in the development of tactical and strategic patterns of this variant.

My personal favourite is this little gem, which clearly shows the superior understanding of the game by Bigboulix:

Game No. 6

But all games are worth to be replayed:

Game No. 1

Game No. 2

Game No. 3

Game No. 4

Game No. 5

Game No. 7

I'm glad that this happened while my games vs. sasufix are still in progress, so that I don't gain unjustified rating points from a player who had an unjustified 1900+ BKR and now shows that he is worth only 1700+. This provides an excellent incentive to play for a win now, because a draw against such a weak player will rightfully cost me some BKR points.

***Edited to correct links at Liontamers request***

Liontamer: Well, together with robtoo, Bigboulix is the best of the best on this site, and I believe that not only here. He has a great "insight" into the essence of all the games he plays, no matter whether it is Los Alamos Chess or Hyper Backgammon.

Pedro Martínez: there are alot of multi-talented players here, including yourself, Pedro.
its the best thing about BrainKing.

I've got a question to the more experienced players of Los Alamos Chess. I'm relatively new at this kind of game, so I don't have good understanding of it (playing it only just for fun).

In my opinion, in Los Alamos Chess pawns are stronger than in normal chess, because the board is smaller (-> faster promotion of pawns -> faster control of board), and pawns have to do the the job of the missing bishops (e.g.covering the diagonals).

So I'm interested if I'm wrong with this idea, that there is a movement of strength of the pieces to normal chess, or if it is only theoretical and isn't noticealbe while playing game.

Thanks for your answers!

FromHell: Zillions-of-Games uses the following piece values (roundig to the first digit after the point):

pawn: 1.0
knight: 2.5
rook: 3.8
queen: 5.9

FromHell: i have not played many games but am yet to play in one wehre a pawn was promoted ... but I would agree that the pawn is more powerful, not just becuse it promotes fast beut it controls a higher percdntage of the board than in normal chess (a central pawn controls 1/18th of hte board here whereas in normal chess it only controls 1/32nd ... nearly twice the power) likewise knights centrally control 8/36, nearly a quarter of the board whereas rooks will only control 10/36ths. This is a simplistic appraisla but you can see where it leads.

There has been much discussion on peice values in the 10x8 thread over the years, including methods for determining the values. you might find it interesting to read through there ... you could try a search using "piece value".

Cheers

WQ :)

WhisperzQ: Thanks for your quick answer. Your kind of view to this problem seems logical to me. That far I haven't thought... And thanks for the hint with the 10x8 board. I'll have a look at it!

andreas: Thanks for the values. For the first time it's a good guidline. But do you know how this values are acquired?

FromHell: Looks like I need a spellchecker and proof reader too ... glad you could understand it :)

Interesting:

White won 325 (49 %)
Black won 287 (43 %)
Draws 56 (8 %)

That I lose most games with white due forced moves.

Seravajan: hello

Is stalemate a loss for the mated player?

ughaibu: I always thought it was a draw

ughaibu: The rules say:

All standard Chess rules are applied with the following exceptions:

• Pawns cannot make a double-step initial move.
• There is no castling.
• There is no en-passant capture.

which seems pretty clear to me.

Thanks.